December 17, 2012

A strange way to phrase a question, in this Greg Sargent column. What does this stunning lack of parallelism reveal about the Mind of Sargent?

Indeed, I’m cautiously hopeful that this time around, Democrats will overcome their typical skittishness on guns. ... [T]he politics of this issue have changed: Democrats are less reliant on conservative, rural, gun-owning voters than at any time in the history of the party, due to Dem gains among socially moderate suburbanites, and ongoing demographic shifts that continue to boost the vote share among minorities and young voters — all voter groups who may not see “gun rights” as a potent issue.

You know those "rural" folk, who cling to their guns and religion. Maybe they can be ignored by Democrats who have other blocs out of which to build victories. But to throw "gays" on the list... well, that's not something those horrible peasants cling to likeguns and religion. It's something they're supposedly repelled by, perhaps something like the way those socially moderate suburbanites are imagined to have an aversion to God and guns.

I guess Sargent might love alliteration. GGG. But someone ought to tell him that — coming from a very conspicuous gay guy — GGG stands for "good, giving, and game": ("good in bed," "giving equal time and equal pleasure," and "game for anything — within reason'").

I find it interesting that the same folks who will tell you in one breath that it'll be impossible to round up & deport 11 million illegal immigrants will tell you in the next breath that we've just got to do something about the estimated 200 million guns in circulation in the US.

This article describes Connecticut's gun laws. If this isn't enough, just imagine how draconian the gun laws must be for these guys schemes to work.

I never would have thought about the Dan Savage angle... Oh, that could sound wrong. I'm gay, but i generally don't find what he writes about, his manner and positions on things (oh, another one) all that enlightening in relation to homosexuality. He's a sub-set.

As far as politics goes, I suspect that Obama's change on his position of same sex marriage was one of the turning points of the election. That change gave a lot of liberals at least one reason to support a guy who they see as a traitor to progressive type causes. Being a libertarian, I of course didn't vote for him. But still, I appreciated his change of tack, as it finally opened the door for many politicians who were supporters of SSM, but felt they couldn't say so openly for fear of retribution of one kind or another. As i suspect that most Democrats have favored gay marriage, they always looked like liars when they said otherwise, Barrack Obama and the Clintons included. Now they can all be honest, on this one issue at least.

I would welcome honesty in Dems pronouncements, instead of a wink and a nod to one of their main goals, a ban on guns. If Bloomberg can ban big gulps, then he is the poster boy for banning guns in the Dem party.

Ironically, if President Obama had signed an Assault Weapon ban, presumably with his Dem Congress, it would have prevented Ms. Lanza from buying the Bushmaster brand new, and the shooter wouldn't have had it.

"I never would have thought about the Dan Savage angle... Oh, that could sound wrong. I'm gay, but i generally don't find what he writes about, his manner and positions on things (oh, another one) all that enlightening in relation to homosexuality. He's a sub-set."

I used to read Savage Love in the Onion all the time, too. But then, I just got tired of Mr Savage's unrelenting bigotry not only towards conservatives & religious believers, but also towards people who led alternate lifestyles of which he didn't approve (e.g. bisexuals).

It's amazing how many gays are as judgmental in their views on the sex lives on others as any fire and brimstone Baptist preacher. They just dislike different groups is all.

I find it interesting that the same folks who will tell you in one breath that it'll be impossible to round up & deport 11 million illegal immigrants will tell you in the next breath that we've just got to do something about the estimated 200 million guns in circulation in the US.

It wouldn't happen overnight but you could certainly dry up the availability of ammo, magazines and new purchases over time. Implement outright bans on assault rifles, exempt legitimate hunting rifles, ban clips on excess of 7 rounds etc. The Aussies did it so it can be done here. Then we just have to hope the crazies who want to slaughter don't start making bombs.

You can remove the 11 million illegals easily as well. Implement a $25,000 fine for every undocumented person employed at a business. Put the legal onus on business so harsh they don't dare hire illegals. Problem solved.

GGG means nothing to me. As YoungHegelian points out, the two largest minorities in the U.S., blacks and Hispanics, seem to love their guns. Currently, these groups seem to be low information voters, but with a little PR administered properly, the Dems could find themselves in hot water real quick.

Especially after (8) years of incompetence/ineptitude er cheney/bush lol.

GGG worked in Ohio in 2004 when turdblossom put the gay marriage hate issue referendum on the ballot in (8) states and Bush squeaked by in Ohio. Congrats on that small victory. But as it turned out (8) years of cheney/bush begat (8) years of Obama. :)

Now that I think about it - advocating gays get guns is good! It started out in the 80's with gay rights - then marriage, then LBGT/whatever rights, then Dan Savage and "semi-monogamy". If they work that magic with guns, I'll be able to mount that 40mm ack ack on the roof to take care of my pesky neighbor and his helicopter!

The easiest way to reduce gun violence in America has been obvious for decades: End the War on Drugs. But Republicans have been too authoritarian to run with that position. They prefer putting as many people in jail and prison as possible, which is destructive to society.

Then there's the problem that so many of the front and center Republicans nowadays just sound nutty. On this school shooting issue, all weekend long Republicans have been running around saying their bright idea is for kindergarten teachers to carry guns. That's their vision for America's future? They think that's how we want our schools to be? If you don't want to come off as gun nuts then stop being gun nuts.

And a lot of the conservative media voices have been trying to mainstream all this survivalist stuff the shooter's mom was caught up in. Glenn Beck sells survivalist packs. Glenn Reynolds is often linking his readers to web sites that are about prepping for the economic collapse. The Drudge Report has decided, in recent years, to regularly link to the paranoid conspiracy site Infowars.

When I went to lunch an hour ago the radio came on when I started the car. The dial happened to be on Glenn Beck's show and the first words I heard was a fill-in guest wondering how many members of the army would side with the people when the shit hits the fan. OH, more of that shit again. I quickly turned the channel.

On the issues related to God, gays, and guns, the Republicans have a lot of mentally sick people front and center, and they turn people off. Meanwhile they continue to portray Obama as some sort of extreme socialist, which is far from reality. And Obama can continue to come across as the level-headed, reasonable person standing in sharp contrast to people who are disturbing to mainstream America and don't even know it. 'm not even a fan of Obama anymore, but I had no doubt he'd win that last election, yet out of touch Republicans didn't see it coming at all, and Karl Rove had a meltdown on election night.

The whole reason for the BILL OF RIGHTS was to keep from having a ' tyranny of the majority'. That is 51 percent decides the other 49 percent DIE. See in a true democracy 51 percent can sell out the other 49.

It is also why we have the rather convolved way of getting laws passed. It's all to make the process harder so the 'majority' will find it difficult to impose it's will on the minority.

And it also explains why we have the Electoral College. It's to make sure any one who wins has a broad support across the whole land.

So be careful when you want direct democratic rule. Unless you have a VERY STRONG bill of rights then the majority can destroy the minority.

@YoungHegelian, thank you for the link. I don't understand how Connecticut can ban "35 semi-automatic and automatic weapons" but overlook the Bushmaster. Wasn't that the weapon of choice for the Beltway sniper a few years back.

BigMike - Simply because someone used a weapon of an illegal purpose doesn't mean it should outlawed. There are plenty of hunting rifles that can shoot your eye out as sure as the Bushmaster. The Winchester Model 70, widely used as a sporting gun, has also been used as a sniper rifle by the military and law enforcement. Since it's bolt action, it can't fire as rapidly as a Bushmaster, but for sniping, that's not a major concern.